Unintended consequences of gay marriage?
 

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/69978

In this talk, the professor cited a case in a church in New Jersey who refused to allow a same-sex couple to have a ceremony at their pavilion ...... and immediately lost its tax-exempt status.

No, that could never happen. We're just a bunch of chicken littles who say such a thing can......and did happen. Gays hate religion because it teaches that their behavior is against God's plan and they don't like to be told that and thus their ultimate goal is to do as much damage to organized religion as possible.

Is it really that difficult to see and understand? :(

First, that link says nothing about the New Jersey case. And second, you have no idea what you are talking about if you think that case was as simple as a church not allowing a couple to marry at their pavillion.

Certainly sounds like it was that simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html

Are you saying that the loss of tax exempt status for that one small portion (less than 1% of the total area involved) of privately-owned land intended for public use is the same as a church losing its tax exempt status over refusal to marry same-sex couples in its private churches and temples?

Of course not.

Are you comfortable with what the state commissioner did?

Is Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association an organized religion protected under the First Amendment?

If not, what does this case have to do with churches losing their tax exempt status?

This article would have been more persuasive if the Methodist church itself lost it's tax exempt status....which, as well know, it did not.

I will wait patiently while someone can jump in and walk me through how this pertains to First Amendment rights for organized religions.

thanks!

Also, if you read about the state's Green Acres Program, you will see quickly that, once again, this involves a group that was on the take for government money. They used muni bonds to finance the development of their land for public access.

Why the big surprise here?

I guess the lesson we can learn from this red herring is that if the Church starts taking federal money to fund its activities, then it may be at risk of losing its tax exempt status. Which is why the Church doesnt take federal or state money to fund its religious activities.

Next, please.

I guess you are comfortable with an organization using state funds to develop areas that are then off limits to certain demographics of that same community.

Nice, Tex. take a bow.

Or better yet....read up before you comment.

I guess I am not uncomfortable with it. Again, this is a privately owned area that applied for federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks, on the provision that it be open for public use. They chose not to keep it open for public use, thus they lose their tax exepmt status. Whats the big deal?

The article identifies it as a Methodist organization. Not sure specifically what legal relationship that has to the actual United Methodist Church, but it's clear the beliefs of the church played a role in the enforcement of the rules for the pavilion.

An imperfect analogy is perhaps the easement that was under dispute in Salt Lake a few years back.

Is the pavilion private property or not?

I believe the extend to which a private organization can define the rules of public use of its private land are exactly what the case revolves around.

What do you think the boundaries should be?